Early this evening, the NCAA and Indiana released separate press releases on the eligibility status of Peter Jurkin and Hanner Mosquera-Perea. The NCAA has ruled the players must each sit nine games and donate money to charity. (A link to applicable documents in this case.)

Here’s IU’s release:

Calling Indiana University’s corrective actions “substantial and meaningful,” the NCAA on October 31, 2012, ac- cepted as secondary a case IU filed with it on June 22, 2012. In short, that case involves the provision of what would generally have been permissible expenses but for the provider’s donation of $185 to the IU Varsity Club between 1986 and 1992, rendering him forever a “booster” under NCAA rules, notwithstanding that the donations were minimal in nature and occurred over 20 years ago.

Because the NCAA permits prospective student-athletes to receive normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom the student-athlete has an established relationship (such as a non-scholastic athletics team coach like in this case), most of the expenses in this matter would have been generally permissible had not the benefactor been deemed a “booster” based upon those dated, nominal Varsity Club donations. Since his last donation in 1992, twenty years ago, and more than 15 years before he first provided the expenses, the benefactor has made no additional financial contributions in support of Indiana University. The benefactor, Mark Adams, fully disclosed both his Varsity Club contributions and former student-athlete expenses at the time of the first eligibility determination in 2008 for Tijan Jobe, and he has completely cooperated with this review.

As detailed in the NCAA’s October 31, 2012 decision letter:

The institution was aware that Mr. Adams and his nonprofit organization had provided support to Mr. Perea and Mr. Jurkin, but believed such support was generally permissible pursuant to an NCAA June 6, 2000, interpretation, given Mr. Adams’ status as their nonscholastic coach and Mr. Perea’s apparent legal guardian. At the time, the institution did not believe Mr. Adams to be a representative of their athletics interests. From the summer of 2010 through April 2011, during the course of planning the recruitment of Mr. Perea and Mr. Jurkin, the institution’s compliance staff worked closely with the conference office, the NCAA AMA staff and NCAA enforcement basketball focusgroup staff regarding the relationship between Mr. Adams and the institu tion’s men’s basketball program and how to ensure the permissible recruitment of prospective student-athletes with ties to Mr. Adams’ nonscholastic team.

It was not until April 2011 that the then assistant athletics director for compliance revealed for the first time that he had knowl edge that Mr. Adams previously had made donations to the institution’s booster club. After completing his degree in 1980, Mr. Adams donated nominal amounts to the institution’s booster club. In total, Mr. Adams donated $185 between 1986 and 1992. He has made no other additional financial contributions in support of the institution’s athletics program.

Despite the minimal nature of Mr. Adams’ donations, and the fact that the last donation he made was more than 15 years before he provided expenses to a prospective student-athlete who enrolled at the institution, Mr. Adams must be considered a represen tative of the institution’s athletics interests.

The NCAA Basketball Focus Group worked with Indiana University staff to review the interaction between the men’s basketball program and Adams, A-HOPE, and Indiana Elite and have found no impermissible access or additional basis to further establish Adams as a representa- tive of Indiana University’s athletics interests.

“This matter was discovered internally and promptly reported to the NCAA,” said Fred Glass, Indiana University Vice President and Direc- tor of Intercollegiate Athletics. “At the NCAA’s direction, we conducted an extensive and thorough review in cooperation and consultation with the NCAA Basketball Focus Group. While I am very disappointed with these circumstances, I am very pleased with the way we have responded and appreciative of the NCAA’s professional guidance and assistance. I would also like to thank Mark Adams for his forthright candor and cooperation in this matter.”

After the completion of the internal review in consultation with the NCAA Basketball Focus Group, Indiana University self-imposed the following penalties and corrective actions as part of its June 22, 2012, self-report: a $5,000 fine (based upon the NCAA’s established formula for a failure to properly certify a student-athlete); a one-year suspension of the benefactor’s communication with the men’s basketball coaching staff; and completion of the NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement process for the two incoming student-athletes, Hanner Perea and Peter Jurkin. Again, the NCAA later characterized these actions as “substantial and meaningful.”

On July 27, 2012 Indiana University filed with the NCAA requests for reinstatement of student-athlete eligibility for Peter Jurkin and Hanner Perea. Indiana University proposed that, based on the totality of these rather unusual circumstances, each student-athlete should be immediately reinstated (that is, without being withheld from any games) and that Jurkin should repay $250 of his reportedly $6,000 in impermissible expenses and Perea $1,238.69 of his approximately $8,000 in impermissible expenses. These expenses included food, clothing, housing, travel, toiletries, a cell phone, a laptop, and other miscellaneous items. On October 29, 2012, after receiving the final set of requested facts from the university the previous week, the NCAA reinstatement staff issued its initial decision that it was requiring Jurkin to repay $250 and Perea to repay $1,588.69 and that they each be withheld from the first nine games of this basketball season. The university then submitted additional information for consideration on the evening of November 1, 2012. After thoroughly reviewing the new information, the NCAA reinstatement staff issued its reconsideration decision the next day confirming its initial decision. Their written decision was received by Indiana University on November 6, 2012. This week Indiana University will file with the Student Athlete Reinstatement Committee its appeal of the staff’s action as to the number of games from which the student-athletes are to be withheld.

IU’s June 22, 2012 Self-Report for Secondary Violations and the NCAA’s October 31, 2012 acceptance letter thereof are attached to this release.

And here’s the NCAA’s:

While in high school, Jurkin and Perea accepted approximately $6,000 and $8,000, respectively, in impermissible benefits from an Indiana University booster. These benefits included plane tickets, meals, housing, a laptop, cell phone and clothing. Jurkin will be required to repay $250 to a charity of his choice. Perea must repay approximately $1,590 to charity. In determining the amount of repayment, the staff considered the mitigation presented by the university.

Specifically, the involved booster was the student-athletes’ nonscholastic basketball coach. Further, the student-athletes qualified as recipients of the booster’s nonprofit organization, which assists international student-athletes in obtaining travel documents and transportation to the United States. However, the booster also had continuous involvement with the Indiana University men’s basketball program. In addition, the impermissible benefits occurred on multiple occasions during these student-athletes’ recruitment.

Indiana University was aware starting in April 2011 that there could be eligibility issues for these student-athletes should they enroll at the school. The university submitted its student-athlete reinstatement requests on July 27, 2012. The NCAA reinstatement staff issued its decision on October 29, 2012, after receiving the final set of requested facts from the university the previous week.

The university then submitted new information for consideration on the evening of November 1. After thoroughly reviewing the new information, the NCAA staff issued its decision the next day. The new information did not change the original statement of facts agreed upon by the university and the NCAA prior to the start of the reinstatement process.

Notice this is all self-reported. Like the Kelvin Sampson situation, IU gave the NCAA the ammunition to penalize the team. That is integrity. You ask why other schools get away with it? This is why.

hoosier1158

i don’t think it’s a good idea to start both zeller and cwat. If they both get in early foul trouble then you really have a short line up. I would limit the time zeller and watford play at the same time, but then i’m not near as smart as CTC. He will figure out something that will work… : )

The fact that you are forever a “booster” even thought you haven’t “donated” money since ’92 really makes me despise the NCAA. $185 is a small amount that has nothing to do with these two innocent players who came to America for a better opportunity.

The fact that you are forever a “booster” even thought you haven’t “donated” money since ’92 really makes me despise the NCAA. $185 is a small amount that has nothing to do with these two innocent players who came to America for a better opportunity.

The fact that you are forever a “booster” even thought you haven’t “donated” money since ’92 really makes me despise the NCAA. $185 is a small amount that has nothing to do with these two innocent players who came to America for a better opportunity.

Don’t fret, we’ve got Guy Marc-Michelle waiting in the wings . . . wait. Never mind. He apparently played EA Sports NBA 2004 back in grade school and was deemed a professional. Screw the NCAA. I’ve been patient but come on – when did reasonableness and materiality cease to exist. In anything?

IUfanPurduePhD

That’s like saying that a cop who gives you a speeding ticket for going 55.1 in a 55 MPH zone was “right” … technically, yes, but rationally? Absolutely not.

It could have been worst indeed. This is only a quarter of the season guys. (We played 36 games last year) they could’ve been Guy-Marc Micheled out the whole year.

montco1

If looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, its a duck.
If I gave 6k or 8K of inducements/travel/laptops/etc, and then directed the recruit to my favorite school. IU was warned well over a year ago about this. Nothing to do with being or not being a booster. It’s a slam dunk.
I hate the ncaa, it misses the mark on a lot of issues, but not this one.

IUfanPurduePhD

So what about the dozens of other A-HOPE kids that chose other schools? The issue here is the $185 that Adams gave to IU about 20 years ago… that is why the NCAA is calling him a “booster” — not because it’s his “favorite school.”

IUfanPurduePhD

So what about the dozens of other A-HOPE kids that chose other schools? The issue here is the $185 that Adams gave to IU about 20 years ago… that is why the NCAA is calling him a “booster” — not because it’s his “favorite school.”

IUfanPurduePhD

And if it’s that much of a “slam dunk” because of “6k to 8k,” then suspend the students for the entire season; heck, declare them permanently ineligible.

AJ_IU_ColtsFan

Wait… warned? Adams and IU tried to get clarification *from* the NCAA on what expenses were and weren’t considered allowable! How does that suddenly turn into being warned?

And why stop at the travel/laptops/etc? You forgot the meals and clothes. The NCAA didn’t. Want proof that Adams was actually their guardian? There it is! He was actually feeding and clothing them.

And directing the recruits? That explains why Negedu went to Tennessee instead of IU?

It does quack like a duck. Just not the duck the NCAA is charging. They’re equating bumperstickers with payoff boosterism and money spent on raising teens with “benefits”. If that doesn’t meet the standard for ridiculous, then what does?

IUMIKE1

As I understand it they can still practice full time but aren’t allowed to play in the first nine games. With them both coming off the bench I would say that they are just as likely, if not more likely, to get injured (or in HP’s case another flare up) in practice than in a game. I would guess that if anything HP will, as a way to vent the frustration, be practicing even harder and thus increase the chance of another flare up especially when one factors in that he will spend a lot more time putting pressure on the problem foot in practice than he would in an actual game. There is no substitute for minutes played in an actual game so this BS decision carries somewhat of a double edged sword. If it’s gonna happen I would just as soon it happen while he is getting game time experience.

After having read most, if not all of your posts in the past & agreeing with the bulk of them it really surprises me that you are, “mostly OK”, with the ruling. I know that we finally know what is going to happen now, they can eventually start playing in games and we can soon put it all behind us and all that stuff, but that does not change the fact that this is total & complete BS hose job, especially the part where HP must repay all this money.

IUMIKE1

I have a better chance to get my wife to admit she was wrong about something and the chances of that happening are somewhere between very slim and none so I guess it’s pretty clear what I think the chances of something good coming out it are.

IUMIKE1

I have a better chance to get my wife to admit she was wrong about something and the chances of that happening are somewhere between very slim and none so I guess it’s pretty clear what I think the chances of something good coming out it are.

IUMIKE1

You have given them way too much credit, waaaay too much.

Evansville Hoosier

I spoke rashly because I knew very little of Mark Adams, and what I did know was bad (son on IU’s staff, former problems with Tijan). I said I was mostly ok with the ruling because when I heard the eligibility questions were related to A-HOPE I thought of that ESPN investigative article, and I expected the hammer to be dropped. All that being said, the guy runs a charity for impoverished students, giving them a chance at an education (a chance I swear I’ve heard both of them cherish in several interviews) and the way I see it, with how the NCAA ruled, if Mark Adams brings a player over he is not allowed to go to IU. Is there any other way to circumvent this? No, not under these draconian rules. He is a forever a booster, so if a player attends IU he is receiving impermissible benefits. Preposterous.

In short, I was wrong in originally stating I was alright with the ruling.